Implementation of Bug-in-Ear Coaching by Community-Based Professional Development Providers

A Review of the Evidence for Real-Time Performance Feedback to Improve Instructional Practice

“…Although the primary dependent variable in all studies captured teacher instructional practice, less than half of studies collected student outcome variables ( n = 15, 46.88%). Student-level dependent variables included student engagement (Cheek, 2016; Holden, 2016; Lown, 2017; Sweigart, Landrum, & Pennington, 2015; White, 2018), disruptive behavior (Lown, 2017; Nguyen, 2015; Sweigart et al, 2015; Taber, 2015; White, 2018), percentage of correct responses (Cheek, 2016; Garland, 2013; Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, & Lee, 2006), expressive communication (Coogle, Ottley, Rahn, & Storie, 2018; Coogle, Ottley, Storie, Rahn, & Burt, 2017; Coogle, Ottley, Storie, Rahn, & Burt, 2018; Ottley & Hanline, 2014; Ottley, Piasta, Coogle, Spear, & Rahn, 2018), use of self-regulated learning strategies (Holden, 2016), and “initiation compliance,” or following directions (Wimberly, 2016).…”

“…One study used either a peer preservice teacher or researcher as the interventionist, depending on group assignment (Hollett, Brock, & Hinton, 2017). One study used community coaches from a nonprofit professional development organization (Ottley et al, 2018). The remaining five studies employed mentor teachers, coteachers, or other school staff as the interventionist (Giebelhaus, 1994; Lindell, 2001; Ottley, Coogle, Rahn, & Spear, 2017; Savio-Wolf, 2016; Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansberry, 2010).…”

“…Of the six group design studies identified for this review, only one met all QIs (Ottley et al, 2018). The researchers in this study employed a randomized control trial with a small sample size ( n = 21).…”

“…Three studies that employed nonresearcher implementers of the intervention did not adequately describe interventionist training or qualifications necessary to deliver the intervention (QI 3.2; Giebelhaus, 1994; Hollett et al, 2017; Lindell, 2001). Only two of the six studies adequately described intervention steps with replicable precision (QI 4.1; Lindell, 2001; Ottley et al, 2018).…”

“…Although providing RPF may improve teacher behavior during intervention sessions, these effects do not necessarily facilitate change in generalized teacher skills or student outcomes. The only methodologically sound group design study evaluated in this review employed a small sample size ( n = 21) and demonstrated positive effects for only one of five communication strategies measured (Ottley et al, 2018). Additional methodologically rigorous group design studies are essential to determining the generalizability of RPF as an effective teacher-level intervention.…”